Re: Paul Mitchell: There is 2nd witness to Constitution

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Committee for Original Intent on December 29, 1997 at 23:57:35:

In Reply to: Re: Paul Mitchell: There is 2nd witness to Constitution posted by Frank on December 27, 1997 at 22:54:48:

: : The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they gave us the Constitution for the United States of America. They also knew it would be abused, amended, changed, etc. and at some point would need the people to stand up and reclaim their rights (similar to the Barons with King John in 1215 and also similar to our own Declaration of Independence etc.) When you read their diaries and correspondence, they all state how important it is to stay educated, etc. You know all of that, so I'll get right to the point. They gave us our basic tools to get the original intent back into our government. I'm speaking of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Let me explain. The delegates met in May 1787 through September 1787 and hammered out the Constitution. During that same period of time, Congress was sitting and in July of 1787, they passed the Northwest Ordinance. This, of course, gave the basic ways the territoritory Norwest of the River Ohio could become States, (number of people, etc.). But within it, it contained the most important basic rights we need, i.e. trial by jury (not jury trial) and the judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law. The Northwest Ordinance was passed at the same time the delegates were meeting at the Constitutional Convention, but the delegates at the Convention knew what was in it and what had passed! Rufus King of Massachusetts stood up (during the issue of paper money) and quoted it!!!! How could they know what was in it?? I beleive it was part of a master plan to get us an unadulterated declaration of rights that wouldn't be changed or amended so that we could find it now that we need it. The Northwest Ordinance was about 8 pages and was based on a 2 1/2 page document written in 1784 by Jefferson. Others added to it and expanded it (Dane's diary states he is offended that Jefferson gets all the credit for it!). Now, here is the really interesting part. The Northwest Ordinance was passed under the Articles of Confederation which were in effect until the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. The Constitution recognized all engagements and compacts made under the Articles of Confederation as being valid under the Constitution. That should seal the fact that the Northwest Ordinance applies -- but, the founding fathers went even further. They waited until the 9th state had ratified the Constitution and then just after (August 1789) Congress adopted the Northwest Ordinance IN TOTAL as an Act of Congress!!! Why would they have to have it in twice?? They wanted to make sure we get to claim the right of trial by jury of PEERS and that we get the judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law. Trial by jury of peers means folks who of same education level and status (I'm researching old dictionaries), and it also means that the jury gets to decide the law and the fact. If we know how to seat a jury of peers, just to get a level playing field, we'll go back to a true jurisdicition under the common law, or law of the "country" or law of the "people." I've written 3 papers on this, expanding. Do you know all this stuff already or are you interested in the research? Let me know.

: I'm interested and don't know but I'd like to see if my computer can translate corel documents. If so, how do you feel about us sharing the docs with others we know who may not check out this board? Thanks!

That would be great. The more folks that know and understand about trial by jury and the tools that the founding fathers left behind, the better. You have my total permission to make copies and give to whomever will read and appreciate it.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]